A lot of people don't believe that evolution, in the sense of all species being related, really happened. And I can appreciate that - I don't agree, mind you, but evolution is a) easy to get wrong and b) easy to dislike.
Maybe you're someone who don't think it's true; maybe you think the evidence is lacking or ambiguous. If that's the case, I'd like to share with you what is possibly my favourite bit of evidence for the interrelatedness of all living things. I love it because unlike a lot of concepts in this field it's wonderfully straightforward and intuitive, and doesn't rely upon the kind of statistical analysis that 85% of people mistrust. It's called the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, and you have one running down the left side of your neck.
I want you to begin by picturing a maypole. If you don't know what that is, it's just a tall pole with ribbons tied to the top. Before computers and telly, kids would sometimes hold onto the other ends of the ribbons and dance around each other, weaving in and out to braid the ribbons together. Got that? Good.
Now, the laryngeal nerve on the right side of your neck is thoroughly unremarkable. It just goes from the base of your brain to your larynx, end of story. The one on the left, however, makes the same journey via your chest. It leaves your brain, dives down your neck, loops around one of the arteries leaving your heart, then heads back up into your neck. On the face of it, there is no imaginable reason for this. The right-hand nerve shows how the job ought to be done. What gives?
Then we think about the maypole, and how the ribbons become entangled. It happens because the ends move around one another while maintaining their connection. "Hmm," we think, "What if the nerve and the artery have become entangled because the innards of the human body moved around somehow?"
At this point, it's really tempting to cut to the chase and say "Hey look, evolution!" But that would be cheating, because the process of your individual nerve and artery becoming entangled during your development as a foetus is not itself evolution. It just indicates that there's something slightly screwy about human foetal development: a foetus starts growing with a particular layout of veins and nerves, which then get tangled up as they rearrange themselves on the way to becoming a person.
It's worth taking a moment here to think about what 'evolution' would involve if it had in fact happened. Most people - myself included - tend to focus on the idea of changes in the adult form of a creature, which leads us astray because if we bother to think at all about the gestation and growth of that creature, we're tempted just to to extrapolate back and think of it as being this new and different organism right from the moment of conception. So... what's the right way to think about it?
Well, consider all the people you know, and how different they look. Yet they all started out as a single cell, superficially identical. The differences which accumulated into adulthood are largely a matter of timing: how many times certain cells divided to make bones longer or shorter or a different shape, etc etc. There are genetic and nutritional and environmental factors controlling this - it even makes a difference if they favoured lying on one side when they were a baby.
So when we think about evolution and whether it has happened, we should be thinking about and looking for evidence of an accumulation of changes to the growth processes of organisms, as well as commonalities between very different species. For instance, we might find a particular pattern in the fossil record: bony fish appear, then amphibians alongside the fish, then reptiles alongside amphibians and fish, then mammals turn up, then primates, then apes, then us - all of which inspires us to examine their growth processes. And sure enough, the more recently these species seem to start leaving evidence of their existence behind, the more their growth processes have in common.
In particular, we can return to the good old recurrent laryngeal nerve. What we see is that all animals (by which I mean birds, reptiles, mammals etc) start their gestation like fish do. They're initially quite hard to tell apart. But where in fish the layout of nerves and arteries remains sensible right into adulthood, in all mammals (for example) that development process diverges at an early stage, and the recurrent laryngeal nerve becomes entangled. From that point, further divergences of growth seperate the various species of mammal, but they all inherit that early twist. Including the poor giraffe, whose laryngeal nerve is consequently obliged to make a pointless fifteen-foot detour into and out of its chest cavity on its way from brain to larynx.
There's a monumental amount of evidence for the historical and ongoing process of evolution, but this is, as I said, my favourite piece. I love it because you start with a thing that seems outrageously stupid, yet it turns out to be the key to something profound; it turns out that it makes sense.
I hope I've made as much sense explaining it. Thanks for reading.
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
blasphemy!!!!!! raep him my brethrin!!!! i like reading blogs/articles where the person is really passionate about what they are writing about good read.
Evolution is 100% provable the only problem is it conflicts with certain sectors.
Quick example: In England there are many old buildings and you would be supprised by how low the door frames and ceilings are that's because people where shorter back when they were made. Kinda cool to think.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
As far as I'm concerned evolution is a 100% a proven fact... especially when the other major choice is "creationism" which has been proven wrong countless times (just look at the age of certain rocks? lol) ..
don't understand how people out there still argue against evolution (oh right I forgot it goes against their "religiuos beliefs".... maybe stop taking the bible 100% literally?)
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
Thoery of evolution describes the process of natural selection. Your absolutely right that it describes the "how" of how we came to being, but you seem to infer that it's obligated to have the answer to the "why" question of why we came to being (purpose). Your correct evolution does not answer why, but its not meant to! The question of why is answered by in your case faith, not claiming that you don't but i just wish people of faith would do themselves the justice of admitting that it's faith (belief without rational evidence).
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Not believing in evolution is not ignorant. Evolution is still a theory and everyone has the right to agree or disagree after having informed him/herself.
Natural selection over millions of years is not evolution itself but a mechanism of evolution? Yes, carpentry is not the same as the mechanism of carpentry, but do you really want to nitpick here?
The most common misconception about evolution (and on e which a baffling number of religious people promote) is the idea that evolution is a species morphing and changing into something else. for example during it's lifetime a bird develops a bigger beak because it's required in the environment. Seriously SOOOO many people believe something like this and cite it as proof that evolution is ridiculous. Evolution is NOT a concious change or adaptation. When a species possesses an alteration at birth (let's say a longer beak) because of some random genetic difference, and that change makes it more suitable to the environment (let's say longer beak makes it easier to break and eat hard seeds in a dry climate) then that species has a higher survival rate and passes it's genes of to its offspring. Voilà sensible evolution
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Not believing in evolution is not ignorant. Evolution is still a theory and everyone has the right to agree or disagree after having informed him/herself.
Natural selection over millions of years is not evolution itself but a mechanism of evolution? Yes, carpentry is not the same as the mechanism of carpentry, but do you really want to nitpick here?
IT'S THEORII NAWT FACT!!!. Evolution as things stand at the moment is a fact. The scientific definition of theory is different to the laymans definition. In science theory ranks above fact, theory explains the fact. Evolution is plain as day in the natural world. The theory of evolution is mans attempt to diagram and explain what he sees.
You see the beauty of science is that theres something called falsifiability. Present a single peice of evidence in contradiction to the present theory and the entire thing either falls apart or needs to be reworked, that is science. The ongoing quest for knowledge. The theory of evolution as it stands contains no glaring inconsistencies. And thus is as factual as anything else.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that since you do not believe in evolution, that you perhaps accept a religious derived answer. Religion in it's essence is faith based and requires no substantiated evidence. In which case you have not "informed" yourself but rather deluded.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
No they can't go hand in hand. It's either one or the other and this has been well established. The most glaring inconsistency would be the time span as the bible says the earth is only a few thousand years old. Some people like to interpret the word day in genesis figuratively as meaning a huge time span but it's been established this is inconsistent with how the Book of Genesis uses day in the rest of it's passages. On top of that in the beginning there is a clear description of day meaning a period of light and then darkness.
The second problem u run into is that evolution says we evolved from other primates while the bible says god made us and made all other animals. The theory that single celled organisms evolved into multicellular ones is again inconsistent with genesis which states God created the animals and Adam and eve named them... Therefore they were all present in the beginning
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
I used to think like that. But the more I listened to what people had to say, the more I realised active disbelief is almost invariably a product of revulsion. If someone is powerfully, emotionally motivated not to want something to be true, it's virtually impossible to batter that response down with mere reason and facts - and I'm talking about anyone here, and any subject. Jeering and contempt only serve to strengthen one's resolve to remain unconvinced, because now there's an unpleasant personality you don't want to be right, rather than just an abstract idea.
Not believing in evolution is not ignorant.
It's not necessarily the product of ignorance alone, true. I hasten to add that 'ignorance' should not be taken as a slight. There are many things of which we are all happy to remain ignorant, and it does not diminish us in the least.
Evolution is still a theory and everyone has the right to agree or disagree after having informed him/herself.
Not precisely correct. Common descent, which is what we sometimes mean when we say 'evolution', is an established fact. There is very little of which it is possible to be more completely certain. The theory of evolution, the nuts and bolts of how it all works, remains in a state of flux - and rightly so.
Natural selection over millions of years is not evolution itself but a mechanism of evolution? Yes, carpentry is not the same as the mechanism of carpentry, but do you really want to nitpick here?
A better analogy would be to say 'Carpentry is not the same as the mechanism of sawing wood.' It's not nitpicking to point out that carpentry includes the use of saws, but also many more techniques. Similarly, natural selection is only one mechanism driving evolution. Indeed, natural selection must be considered an intermittent and variable force, weak in some places and times, strong in others, for evolution to account for the variety of creatures alive today.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin'
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
Yes, I'm a creationist (sorry if all my opinions are going to seem meaningless to all non-creationists now) and believe that God has made all existing things. And as contradictory as it seems, I do believe in dinosaurs. If God can make stars and planets then I'm pretty sure he can make dinosaurs.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin'
I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory?
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
Yes, I'm a creationist (sorry if all my opinions are going to seem meaningless to all non-creationists now) and believe that God has made all existing things. And as contradictory as it seems, I do believe in dinosaurs. If God can make stars and planets then I'm pretty sure he can make dinosaurs.
Please don't take this as me insulting you but can you tell me what is it about creationism that makes it a more valid hypothesis than the theory of evolution which is supported by masses of evidence? Or is it simply a matter of faith in which you are being willfully ignorant.
On June 19 2010 00:29 Ryhn wrote: I believe in micro evolution, but not macro.
There are 350,000 species of beetles described with plenty still to be discovered. Is this explained by evolution? Where is the line between micro and macro?
On June 19 2010 00:29 Ryhn wrote: I believe in micro evolution, but not macro.
This is the kind of shit that I hear in Georgia all the time. Otherwise intelligent people saying that little talking point drilled into them by religious institutions. Newsflash: microevolution and macroevolution are not terms that actual biologists use, at least not since the early 1900's. If you are to accept that these are legitimate terms, you would realize that they are the same thing.
I hate religion... It's so obviously a sham, and yet it still gets so many people to shut down their ability to think for themselves and hinder progress.
The reason why people reject some science like evolution, but accept other science like the earth is round and gravity, is that evolution directly contradicts creationism, which indirectly says that their whole lives are devoted to a lie. Defense mechanism turns on at this point and rejects all possible evidence and labels evolution as false.
That was a nice read thanks, but I think you should add this poll or a similar one to the opening:
Poll: After reading this:
I have always believed in evolution. (28)
82%
Read this only because there are two more hours until next game. (3)
9%
I was a creationist, but now evolution makes sense to me. (1)
3%
God made everything. No discussion needed. (1)
3%
I was an evolutionist, but now I have found my faith. (1)
3%
34 total votes
Your vote: After reading this:
(Vote): I have always believed in evolution. (Vote): I was a creationist, but now evolution makes sense to me. (Vote): God made everything. No discussion needed. (Vote): I was an evolutionist, but now I have found my faith. (Vote): Read this only because there are two more hours until next game.
I would be really interested to see how many creationists changed their mind after reading this.
On June 19 2010 01:10 zenMaster wrote: The reason why people reject some science like evolution, but accept other science like the earth is round and gravity, is that evolution directly contradicts creationism, which indirectly says that their whole lives are devoted to a lie. Defense mechanism turns on at this point and rejects all possible evidence and labels evolution as false.
To my knowledge the vatican caved in on the earth being sperical eventually. Perhaps theres is hope after all!
Some of my personal favourites that get people to at least entertain the idea that evolution is true is to simply mention the redundancies some of our human anatomy, such as how our eyes have blindspots, how we have an appendix that doesn't really do anything and how we have wisdom teeth insist on growing despite the lack of room in our jaw.
On June 19 2010 01:46 KrAzYfoOL wrote: Some of my personal favourites that get people to at least entertain the idea that evolution is true is to simply mention the redundancies some of our human anatomy, such as how our eyes have blindspots, how we have an appendix that doesn't really do anything and how we have wisdom teeth insist on growing despite the lack of room in our jaw.
The blind spot in our eyes is caused by the internal structure. It correlates to the position on the retina straight in front of the nerve bundle that connects it. Speaking in terms of survival, having two eyes mitigates the negative effect of blind spots.
Researchers are looking into a possible function of the appendix as a storage for gut bacteria, enabling our guts to restore to a similar balance of ecosystem after for example an guttural infection or perhaps famine troubles.
On June 19 2010 01:58 JohannesH wrote: Well if someone doesn't "believe" in evolution - good luck coming up with a theory that fits the scientific data gathered better
If the current situation is created as is, and has not changed, then there is no need for evolution. (And the data on fossils could be from species now extinct that were once created alongside the currently surviving species.)
I might not be complete here in an alternative explanation, but there's always an answer when you can use mechanisms that do not require supporting evidence of their existence.
Evolution is not something you BELIEVE in. We are not talking about faith when presenting evolution. It's either you use your brain to process what you see and deduct conclusions for yourself, or you are a person of faith and believe what you are being told blindly.
And here it is why the non-religious approach is better: If tomorrow undiscardable evidence of God (let's say another example of the bible and christianity on another planet) appeared, I would accept it and change my previous point of view. In contrast, a person of faith would never ever change their mind no matter what the fact, because the pure definition of faith makes the opinion unarguable. Of course there is no point in complaining about it, but it's still sad.
Without a dentist there aren't that many ways to replace teeth that fall out.
It's either you use your brain to process what you see and deduct conclusions for yourself, or you are a person of faith and believe what you are being told blindly.
What about the people who blindly believe in evolution without any clue of the evidence?
If you believe in mutations and natural selection you believe in evolution.
Now show me the guy who doesn't believe in mutations or natural selection. You can only not believe in evolution if you've never really listened to the theory.
Wooh wooh wooh ... to people stating that evolution is fact... um no.
Evolution is a theory, to which most fact agree, and few if any dispute. This results in the theory being generally accepted. This does not result in the thoery being fact.
Which is why we still say the thoery of gravity not the fact of the gravity.
It's either you use your brain to process what you see and deduct conclusions for yourself, or you are a person of faith and believe what you are being told blindly.
What about the people who blindly believe in evolution without any clue of the evidence?
You are on who wants to be a millionaire. You get asked, what compound would best neutralize a 2 molar solution of HF. You have no idea what the answer is because you don't know chemistry so you use your lifeline to call a friend. You know a chemist, a janitor, and a lawyer. Who would you call?
You are a person living on earth right now, you get asked, do you accept the theory of evolution? You don't know biology at all but you know that 99% biologists accept the theory of evolution but that many religious figures find fault with evolution. Who do you trust?
Evolution itself has a lot of evidence to support it. Theories in science are WELL SUPPORTED. If they weren't they would be called hypotheses. It's common for laypeople to throw around theory like it's just something that's trivial, but theories have a lot of evidence behind them.
Pretty good analysis on recurrent laryngeal nerve though... was interesting to note since we just went over this in gross anatomy. Vagus is a pretty cool nerve itself.
Abiogenesis, however, I haven't seen enough evidence to support that though which makes me feel that it's pretty questionable at this point in time.
It's either you use your brain to process what you see and deduct conclusions for yourself, or you are a person of faith and believe what you are being told blindly.
What about the people who blindly believe in evolution without any clue of the evidence?
How does that make sense? It's more common to lose front teeth than back teeth.
Without a dentist there aren't that many ways to replace teeth that fall out.
It's either you use your brain to process what you see and deduct conclusions for yourself, or you are a person of faith and believe what you are being told blindly.
What about the people who blindly believe in evolution without any clue of the evidence?
How does that make sense? It's more common to lose front teeth than back teeth.
People are like sharks, we are expected to lose teeth. Teeth grow in the back and move forwards, pushing the old ones out. When you walk in the alleys behind bars you'll often find discarded teeth.
Trying to convince people they shouldn't take a 1500 year old book literally is a lot fucking harder then it should be. You can pretty much accept that you will never convince these types of people with facts and science, because they just discard any arguments you bring up that conflict with their belief, and then throw nonsensical bullshit back at you
"God is real" "prove it" "YOU CAN'T PROVE HE ISN'T REAL" is the same as: "I can fly and shoot rainbows out my ass" "prove it" "YOU CAN'T PROVE I CAN'T"
One should get you locked in an insane asylum, the other does get you locked in an insane asylum
Which is why we still say the theory of gravity not the fact of the gravity.
And here I thought it was the curvature of space-time... But such is science, the new theory still agrees with the old results, just ever expanding its regions of applicability.
I just read about this because it was on reddit, along with a really cool video of Dawkins. Contains a dissection so if you are squeamish you may not want to watch it.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin'
I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory?
Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
Yes, I'm a creationist (sorry if all my opinions are going to seem meaningless to all non-creationists now) and believe that God has made all existing things. And as contradictory as it seems, I do believe in dinosaurs. If God can make stars and planets then I'm pretty sure he can make dinosaurs.
Please don't take this as me insulting you but can you tell me what is it about creationism that makes it a more valid hypothesis than the theory of evolution which is supported by masses of evidence? Or is it simply a matter of faith in which you are being willfully ignorant.
The best answer I could possible give you is that I have felt the Holy Spirit and God's existence is something I cannot deny. The Bible is His Living Word and I believe what He has left for me to investigate. But to answer your question, I guess I'm being willfully ignorant. No offense taken.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
Yes, I'm a creationist (sorry if all my opinions are going to seem meaningless to all non-creationists now) and believe that God has made all existing things. And as contradictory as it seems, I do believe in dinosaurs. If God can make stars and planets then I'm pretty sure he can make dinosaurs.
nono. your now taking the credit away from evolution and giving that to the god. Crazy dude that god is. he makes dinosaurs and stars and planets and shit.
YOU are the one with burden of proof, YOU are the one stating there is a god. Therefor YOU have to prove there is. We atheist are not making a statement, YOU are.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
Yes, I'm a creationist (sorry if all my opinions are going to seem meaningless to all non-creationists now) and believe that God has made all existing things. And as contradictory as it seems, I do believe in dinosaurs. If God can make stars and planets then I'm pretty sure he can make dinosaurs.
nono. bible didn't say anything about dinosaurs. your now taking the credit away from evolution and giving that to the god. Crazy dude that god is. he makes dinosaurs and stars and planets and shit.
Yet he cares and will send you to hell because you yanked that one eyed snake he gave you. Resist your natural urge my friend! stay pure
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin'
I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory?
Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
Have you ever looked at a tree? How does one trunk have enough room to split into 1000+ branches? It doesn't! It splits into 2, maybe 3 branches. They split into 2 more, which split into 2 each, which split into 2 each, 2 each etc. 1 trunk -> 1000 branches. There's just a bunch of splits in between.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
Yes, I'm a creationist (sorry if all my opinions are going to seem meaningless to all non-creationists now) and believe that God has made all existing things. And as contradictory as it seems, I do believe in dinosaurs. If God can make stars and planets then I'm pretty sure he can make dinosaurs.
Please don't take this as me insulting you but can you tell me what is it about creationism that makes it a more valid hypothesis than the theory of evolution which is supported by masses of evidence? Or is it simply a matter of faith in which you are being willfully ignorant.
The best answer I could possible give you is that I have felt the Holy Spirit and God's existence is something I cannot deny. The Bible is His Living Word and I believe what He has left for me to investigate. But to answer your question, I guess I'm being willfully ignorant. No offense taken.
Thats a terrible way to look at anything, you're already admitting from the very start you will not deny your god. Therefor there is no reason to even bother arguing with you if you aren't willing to change your mind. Don't call your self an open minded person if you refute stuff without evidence from the very beginning.
You can not just say "God's existence is something i cannot deny", that's speaking in absolutes. You also can't believe in God if you believe in dinosaurs, thats impossible. You're cherry picking from the bible; you cannot believe in the bible if you believe in only certain bits, it doesn't work that way.
You either realize evolution is a fact, or stick with faith.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin'
I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory?
Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
Hehe. i have a solution: instead of billions and billions years of evolution there is this super god that created every fucking thing. LOL
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution
Wow.. I'm going to ask this although I know I shouldn't. But you really believe that the god created everything? And you don't believe in dinosaurs and shit?
Yes, I'm a creationist (sorry if all my opinions are going to seem meaningless to all non-creationists now) and believe that God has made all existing things. And as contradictory as it seems, I do believe in dinosaurs. If God can make stars and planets then I'm pretty sure he can make dinosaurs.
The Bible doesn't say anything about planets, and the stars described in the Bible are quite a bit different from those that exist in reality.
All these childish attacks on God are why I generally avoid making such statements about religion. If you are going to make jokes and attack for for my beliefs then so be it. I just won't take part anymore. I want to respond to some of the statements yall have made, and I regret that I will not. But go ahead, abuse what I have said more.
You also can't believe in God if you believe in dinosaurs, thats impossible. You're cherry picking from the bible; you cannot believe in the bible if you believe in only certain bits, it doesn't work that way.
On June 19 2010 05:19 In)Spire wrote: All these childish attacks on God are why I generally avoid making such statements about religion. If you are going to make jokes and attack for for my beliefs then so be it. I just won't take part anymore. I want to respond to some of the statements yall have made, and I regret that I will not. But go ahead, abuse what I have said more.
I hope you don't mean me. the sentence you told that you dont understand evolution was as much of an attack towards evolution than my previous post was towards god. Good idea quit posting, it's silly to argue about nonsense.
On June 19 2010 05:19 In)Spire wrote: All these childish attacks on God are why I generally avoid making such statements about religion. If you are going to make jokes and attack for for my beliefs then so be it. I just won't take part anymore. I want to respond to some of the statements yall have made, and I regret that I will not. But go ahead, abuse what I have said more.
I hope you don't mean me. the sentence you told that you dont understand evolution was as much of an attack towards evolution than my previous post was towards god. Good idea quit posting, it's silly to argue about nonsense.
Really? lol. Please elaborate where I attacked evolution as you attack my belief in God: "Hehe. i have a solution: instead of billions and billions years of evolution there is this super god that created every fucking thing. LOL". Surely you can understand that this attacks me much more than anything I said could've "attacked" you. Yet I'm still clueless reading back at my post at how I "attacked" you.
And again you continue on with the... "Nonsense"? I don't think I even need to elaborate on that. But no more debate, I'm just really curious as to your reason for posting this.
On June 19 2010 05:19 In)Spire wrote: All these childish attacks on God are why I generally avoid making such statements about religion. If you are going to make jokes and attack for for my beliefs then so be it. I just won't take part anymore. I want to respond to some of the statements yall have made, and I regret that I will not. But go ahead, abuse what I have said more.
I hope you don't mean me. the sentence you told that you dont understand evolution was as much of an attack towards evolution than my previous post was towards god. Good idea quit posting, it's silly to argue about nonsense.
Really? lol. Please elaborate where I attacked evolution as you attack my belief in God: "Hehe. i have a solution: instead of billions and billions years of evolution there is this super god that created every fucking thing. LOL". Surely you can understand that this attacks me much more than anything I said could've "attacked" you. Yet I'm still clueless reading back at my post at how I "attacked" you.
And again you continue on with the... "Nonsense"? I don't think I even need to elaborate on that. But no more debate, I'm just really curious as to your reason for posting this.
You are not arguing. When someone makes a point, you just retreat by saying 'but I have felt God' or something like that. What are we supposed to say? No you? Scientologists get attacked so much its pretty much fashionable, I wouldn't feel sorry for yourself. When you don't present an argument, chances are the opponents get frustrated.
On June 19 2010 05:19 In)Spire wrote: All these childish attacks on God are why I generally avoid making such statements about religion. If you are going to make jokes and attack for for my beliefs then so be it. I just won't take part anymore. I want to respond to some of the statements yall have made, and I regret that I will not. But go ahead, abuse what I have said more.
I hope you don't mean me. the sentence you told that you dont understand evolution was as much of an attack towards evolution than my previous post was towards god. Good idea quit posting, it's silly to argue about nonsense.
Really? lol. Please elaborate where I attacked evolution as you attack my belief in God: "Hehe. i have a solution: instead of billions and billions years of evolution there is this super god that created every fucking thing. LOL". Surely you can understand that this attacks me much more than anything I said could've "attacked" you. Yet I'm still clueless reading back at my post at how I "attacked" you.
And again you continue on with the... "Nonsense"? I don't think I even need to elaborate on that. But no more debate, I'm just really curious as to your reason for posting this.
You are not arguing. When someone makes a point, you just retreat by saying 'but I have felt God' or something like that. What are we supposed to say? No you? Scientologists get attacked so much its pretty much fashionable, I wouldn't feel sorry for yourself. When you don't present an argument, chances are the opponents get frustrated.
That wasn't what he quoted. And how God has made a difference in my life has nothing at all to do with him. I just want clarification on my alleged "attack".
You also can't believe in God if you believe in dinosaurs, thats impossible. You're cherry picking from the bible; you cannot believe in the bible if you believe in only certain bits, it doesn't work that way.
Thats a terrible way to look at anything, you're already admitting from the very start you will not deny your god. Therefor there is no reason to even bother arguing with you if you aren't willing to change your mind. Don't call your self an open minded person if you refute stuff without evidence from the very beginning.
You can not just say "God's existence is something i cannot deny", that's speaking in absolutes. You also can't believe in God if you believe in dinosaurs, thats impossible. You're cherry picking from the bible; you cannot believe in the bible if you believe in only certain bits, it doesn't work that way.
You either realize evolution is a fact, or stick with faith.
^_-
yes you can, im atheist but most of the christians i know only believe in the existence of god and jesus who sacrificed his life to save humanity, it doesnt mean they can't believe in scientific facts
evolution is just a theory that just seems to make sense. there is a process of natural selection but as things stand, you can't prove evolution exists unless you've been around for millions of years observing a monkey giving birth into a breed that leads to humans
Saying you can or cannot believe whatever you want is absolutely retarded. Although it is ridiculously stupid to believe stuff just because its in the bible too. Its in the bible so it must be true! No. I use my own judgement and faith to decide what to believe. No I dont believe that Jesus was god while being his own son and then died and came back to life etc etc, but I do believe he was an extremely wise man who had very valuable teachings that were later on perverted by others. I do believe that a force outside of that which is apparent in our universe exists, because otherwise the creation of the universe makes no sense to me
Anyone can believe whatever they want but that does not make it true. If 99% or more of the leading experts in a field say that something is true, it almost certainly is. Vague notions of disbelief on the grounds that "well this part sounds far-fetched" is stupefying to me. Do you honestly think that none of the thousands of brilliant scientists, biologists and archaeologists who have devoted their lives to studying the origins of humanity have considered your objections? I can assure any skeptics that they have and, in the vast majority of cases, have uncovered mounds of evidence that have satiated these questions.
I do not understand how the internal combustion engine works the way it does. Sure, I've seen diagrams and people have tried to explain it to me, but it still doesn't seem logical to me that the entire process can produce efficient power. But mechanical engineers and mechanics seem convinced and my car runs so I suspend my disbelief and acknowledge my own ignorance. To do otherwise would be an act of self-delusion and extreme arrogance.
Bluntly put, disbelief in evolution stems from those who are not only ignorant, but have an ulterior motive. Perhaps if there were more atheist biologists decrying the validity of evolution the public would have adequate reason (discounting extensive personal research) to be skeptical. As it stands, the only statistically significant body of critics possess supernatural presuppositions about the nature of our world and have very little education in the relevant fields.
If 99% or more of the leading experts in a field say that something is true, it almost certainly is.
Agreed, which is why I ask my biologist about evolution and my rabbi about God, lol.
I think something that atheists need to acknowledge is the religion has EVOLVED multiple times in almost every culture in the world. (arguably atheism is just the latest step in that evolution). Religion is there because its beneficial, until you account for why it was useful in the past you shouldn't be too quick to try to remove it from the present.
I really don't understand how this proves evolution at all? Your text confused me, is it the fact we have the laryngeal nerve that you use as a proof ? Or is is the way we are formed ? Also you talk about how we are all formed has fish, when is that ? Very unclear text imo that doesn't prove anything the way it is explained(maybe I messed something?).
By the way I believe in evolution.
EDIT :
On June 19 2010 23:01 gyth wrote: I think something that atheists need to acknowledge is the religion has EVOLVED multiple times in almost every culture in the world. (arguably atheism is just the latest step in that evolution). Religion is there because its beneficial, until you account for why it was useful in the past you shouldn't be too quick to try to remove it from the present.
There are 2 types of atheism, one is a religion, it is believing there is nothing else than nature. The second type is just not believing in anything, which is my case, this is not part of a religion, we are just waiting to be enlighten and not taking anything seriously when no one knows if it exists or not.
Theory in scientific term does not have the same meaning as hypothesis. Stop saying that its just a theory. Scientific theory in short means a model of how something works supported by tests, observations, and empirical evidence.
Poor design proves there wasn't a designer. (or he's maliciously deceptive)
There isn't much room to challenge evolution on the post-cellular front, but there is still a vacuum on the pre-cellular side. But really any time you have a theory that directly relies on "random" events you leave yourself wide open for speculations of maybe its not so random (i.e. God did it) When you're talking about numbers on the order of 10^400 against, God just doesn't seem that far fetched. Or "My belief in statistics is stronger than my disbelief in God".
On June 20 2010 02:51 gyth wrote: Poor design proves there wasn't a designer. (or he's maliciously deceptive)
There isn't much room to challenge evolution on the post-cellular front, but there is still a vacuum on the pre-cellular side. But really any time you have a theory that directly relies on "random" events you leave yourself wide open for speculations of maybe its not so random (i.e. God did it) When you're talking about numbers on the order of 10^400 against, God just doesn't seem that far fetched. Or "My belief in statistics is stronger than my disbelief in God".
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin'
I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory?
But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
So basically your reason for not believing in evolution is because it is too much of an amazing process to believe in? I feel the exact same way as you, except instead of disbelief I feel astonishment. A whole lot more astonishment than I would feel if I had just said to myself that everything here exists because of a creator. The latter is just such an empty, boring and overused way to explain the universe and it barely answers anything.
It's irritating to think of how many people just never get to see the beauty and preciousness of the process of life. Maybe if they did there wouldn't be so many global problems.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin'
I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory?
Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
My apologies for all the assholes in this thread. If you do come back to read this, it's because of the circumstances they were put into. With different levels of heat, pressures, chemical balances, etc. some variations were more successful than others. That's the basic idea of why natural selection works at all. Then think about it across the span of the globe, with extremely different environments everywhere, and over billions of years.
I suggest you read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin if you'd like more specifics on some of the bridges between simpler animals like fishes and complex animals like humans.
it's fascinating how people talk about evolution as something to believe or not believe in.
it's like saying "i don't believe in math" or "i don't believe in gravity".
just because a few thousand years ago someone tried to explain the existance of life by claiming that everything was created in a matter of days, doesn't mean that there is any thruth to it.
if the star wars story would have existed back then, maybe we would have millions believing in the force today. the only difference is that the bible was written to carry a moral message and not for entertainment, it still is mostly fictional.
In)Spire, admittedly you do not deserve to be belittled just by being a Christian, and you seem like a decent person so I'll present this in a very fair manner - no heckling or snide remarks or anything like that.
If you look past the insults and remarks, some posters have proposed very straight-forward, logical assessments (either to you or in this thread) which you have either ignored, or replied with a fundmentally illogical answer. That's primarily the nature of any animosity in this thread towards you.
The thread started off as someone happily expressing something he's passionate about (hence why it's a blog) - I haven't reread the thread but to give you the benefit of the doubt, let's say there were people heckling Christianity unprovoked. The minute this turns into a religion vs science debate, is when someone advocates the opposing idea, namely you (and maybe 1 or 2 others in this thread). If you'll agree with me, I believe it's only fair that in a debate (once again, looking past the insults and animosity), with both parties obviously willing to argue about it, present their debate in the most effective, logical manner otherwise it just turns into a messy argument overall.
We (supporting evolution) have presented our side, sometimes sloppily, but our claims are backed by significant scientific basis (enough of which is posted in this very thread). Without any insults, without any condescension, "our" side just asks that you give us the fair treatment of doing the same for yourself. If you decide that your main argument is based largely in religion, you must also acknowledge that the burden of proof is on you whenever one makes fundamentally unsubstantiated claims. If I were a third party in this debate, arguing that I don't believe in evolution not because of the Christian God but rather the Tooth Fairy God, I would still have to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on me for my explanation to hold any logical basis. These are fair grounds.
On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote: just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read
I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh
Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science.
Just sayin'.
On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote: Thats a good read. I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example: Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers. A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers. The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events. This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same.
The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself.
Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin'
I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory?
Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
"But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me" - here you are stating that you are ignorant of the mechanisms that comprise the theory of evolution (which is substantiated in statistics, physical records, etc.), while others have tried explain them to you. Instead of accepting these, you made a remark based on your faith and religion. As a whole, we are trying to explain to you that this approach is illogical.
I don't want to impose any one belief on you just as I don't want Christians to impose their belief onto me, but everything I have argued in this post is based in logic. Please try to look at this objectively as well - if after all is said and done, you still maintain your beliefs then I don't have anything else to say. But as of right now you have provided your "side" of the argument with nothing, which is why people are calling you "willingly ignorant", or why people generalize Christians as being "deluded".
On June 20 2010 02:51 gyth wrote: Poor design proves there wasn't a designer. (or he's maliciously deceptive)
There isn't much room to challenge evolution on the post-cellular front, but there is still a vacuum on the pre-cellular side. But really any time you have a theory that directly relies on "random" events you leave yourself wide open for speculations of maybe its not so random (i.e. God did it) When you're talking about numbers on the order of 10^400 against, God just doesn't seem that far fetched. Or "My belief in statistics is stronger than my disbelief in God".
it's like saying "i don't believe in math" or "i don't believe in gravity".
Einstein's general relativity superseded Newton's universal gravitation. And while they're both "gravity", using gravity as an example of static simplicity is pretty funny.
On June 19 2010 04:31 In)Spire wrote:Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
Hi Sorry for the delay in responding to this; been lazing beside a swimming pool in Spain for a week.
With regards to what you describe as your principle objection, I can sympathise. If you don't mind I'd like to break that 'how' question into two parts: "How" as in via what sequence or pattern of intermediate states, and "how" as in by what mechanisms was this pattern of diversification and adaptation facilitated.
I can't judge from the posts you've made so far which of these is causing you problems, but in my experience it's the first 'how' that causes the most confusion. I mean, you supposedly 'start' with a single cell, and you end up with millions of incredibly varied organisms comprised of billions of cells, together filling countless tightly interdependent ecological niches. On the face of it, that does sound pretty far-fetched. It's very easy to imagine ways in which it couldn't have happened, and consequently decide it didn't.
In particular, a lot of people have a hard time imagining a sensible series of steps bridging single- and multi-cellular organisms. The key here is to think in terms of aggregation followed by differentiation, and there are many species still around today to illustrate stages of that process.
I don't want to go rambling on without a better idea of what it is you don't 'get' about common descent or the theory of evolution, so I'll wait for a reply.
I think saying "I believe in evolution" sounds too nonsecular. Belief is a word best used for intangible things, evolution is too well studied and documented to be written off as belief.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.eosmith.com/images/Gallery/Eat,%20Survive,%20Reproduce.jpg)
Vagus is a pretty cool nerve itself.
